Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
Grant said: the same old tired medieval beliefs over and over and over like a deeply boring stuck record that nobody is listening to and nobody accepts. Yet still it goes around and around and around, signifying and dignifying nothing.
-
I hear ya Peter, I just want to see if this ball of twine unravels.
Grant, I don't believe I am taking lives, in fact I'm not. and if i were taking lives, i'd most likely feel i was justified, because most actions we take are justifiable to the self. And that's a simple fact, there are murderers sitting in jail, soldiers sleeping in trenches, euthanasiaists making tea who will still justify what they did, and by justifying themselves, they are duly justified.
And furthermore one of the the exact justifications they will use to justify themselves is that It was necessary to kill. That's a justified killing.
you feel it's not justified,
but that's because you're an idealist. -
Rich - I followed the statement with the one fact we can all agree on. We don't know it all - the only absolute fact we really know.
I don't dispute scientific rigour, but would like it to share the space a bit with other ways of knowing
Agreed. The more we learn, the more the Universe seems to be a pretty freaky place, especially down at the molecular level (quantum physics twists my melon).
I don't see why religious concepts and scientific ones can't at least exist in parallel. There is no 'absolute' or 'right' way.
However, scientific methodology is still the best we've got in terms of finding answers in 'the real world' (a poor choice of phrase in this context, but I can't think of a better one at the moment). Spirituality is a slightly different kettle of fish.
And seeing as how we appear to have drifted quite a bit off topic, I'll make this my last post.
-
Knowledge that comes with error bars and probability measurements is called science. Knowledge that doesn't have these is what we call beliefs, we have beliefs about things we have an absence of or an incomplete knowledge of and are guesses about what might be there.
K, that's a fair and sensible explanation. Ta.
-
Um Kyle, I wrote that...
-
And Peter, I have borrowed it, with proper attribution, because it is a succinct literate and effective definition & distinction - you may find it elsewhere but I will always put it in quotes, with your name as author-
cheers n/n Islander (who really hasnt organised an unholy alliance between peripatus & hagfish...I mean, sheeesh?)
-
Sigh, the downside of putting my best thoughts on the internet. I lose control of them and see them floating away on a stream of multicoloured electrons......
;-)
-
Um Kyle, I wrote that...
I know. You wrote that in response to me, I was just saying that it was a sensible explanation.
Sorry if the sensible discussion and seeking out of intelligent thoughts was getting in the way of the other 20 pages of posts ;)
-
I hear ya Peter, I just want to see if this ball of twine unravels.
We'll see. We'll see....
Grant, I don't believe I am taking lives, in fact I'm not.
You believe you have supported someone committing murder. You declared that the detection of a baby was evidence enough to declare the presence of a person. You said that justification for killing that person could be anything from convenience to medical emergency. When I call that murder it is because I believe your justification is not acceptable.
Do you similarly dismiss every judgement that condemns your actions as irrelevant or are you also an idealist?
and if i were taking lives, i'd most likely feel i was justified, because most actions we take are justifiable to the self.
I have no argument that you could justify them. But then we are not living in a society that bases its legal system on what you think is OK.
And that's a simple fact, there are murderers sitting in jail, soldiers sleeping in trenches, euthanasiaists making tea who will still justify what they did, and by justifying themselves, they are duly justified.
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Justification is based on an acceptance that one's actions are right. A murderer clearly is not justified. A soldier clearly is. I think you need to use a dictionary before you use any more words.
And furthermore one of the the exact justifications they will use to justify themselves is that It was necessary to kill. That's a justified killing.
Killing is not necessarily murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. Again, dictionary.
you feel it's not justified, but that's because you're an idealist.
Are you an idealist?
Wait! Look up idealist in the dictionary before you answer that one :)
-
Grant said: the same old tired medieval beliefs over and over and over like a deeply boring stuck record that nobody is listening to and nobody accepts. Yet still it goes around and around and around, signifying and dignifying nothing.
It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is alive. It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is human. If you have evidence that at conception the baby is dead or not human I'd happily respond to your post with a 'roffle'.
:)
-
All of the relevant points have already been made upthread, so what follows here is just a potted summary.
I still cannot accept the label "a baby" for early stages of pregnancy. Such a label displays arrogance because it assumes the user has perfect knowledge of the future. To show that such a label is inconsistent with general usage, one need only ask any parent how old their baby is. They will measure that age from birth; not from conception. Which is to say that in general use, birth (and not conception) is the reference point for the label "baby". Before birth, "a baby" -- if we were to term it such -- would have a negative age: a logical impossibility. You might call it a "proto-baby" or "pre-baby" perhaps (though then "foetus" is more exact); but not "a baby" tout court. However many times you repeat it, "a baby at conception" is a nullity.Still, moving on to personhood:
Personhood is the result of:(a) cell differentiation into many specialised types of tissue
[BTW, this is one reason why "human DNA sequence" and "living cell(s)" are insufficient to define an entity as "a human". The 3-dimensional structure of DNA in a specialised cell is different to that in an embryonic stem cell -- as it must be, because different areas of the sequence are being exposed and activated. Even for the same DNA sequence, a conceptus's DNA structure is not exactly the same as that of any cell of a newborn baby. It is possible to claim that the conceptus is, in a very exact sense, not genetically human.]
Differentiation results in an organism that is
* recognisably "human-shaped"; and (eventually)
* viable, i.e. capable of continued life independently of a host organism.
I think we can agree that appearance probably should not be used as a defining criterion.
The "independent viability" criterion is probably not central to "personhood", but is fairly important for many medical applications. (Please note that it is not simply a matter of physical "location", but also complete biological dependence.) Deborah suggests that "independent viability" makes a useful practical cutoff for moral purposes if we also lack indicators of "personhood".A far more important criterion for establishing "personhood" would be that the organism has (as a result of differentiation):
(b) a nervous system of some critical size (in terms of number of pathways), that allows it to (i) perceive its environment, and (ii) remember those perceptions.
The conceptus has, by definition, no separate nervous system, and no way of amassing conscious experience. But once condition (b) is met, there is potential for learning, and thus this marks the beginning of the development of a unique personality reflecting the interaction of genetics (some basic personality traits such as introversion/extroversion result from details of brain chemistry that are fairly clearly genetic in origin) and environment.
It is debatable exactly when the neural network develops into something functional. (We can conduct measurements of nerve responses; but it's less clear how we are to interpret those measurements as indicating "perception" or "memory".)
But it is clear that, at some time prior to birth, the nervous system has reached the critical mass allowing perception, and probably also allows some kind of memory retention. There is some evidence that foetuses already recognise the intonation patterns of their mother's voice several months before birth. (One anecdote earlier in this thread, of one baby's favourite song apparently being established before birth, is consistent with this.)
So if we're going to take (b) as some sufficient threshold for "personhood", then infanticide doesn't seem supported; but conversely, early-stage abortion is not morally prohibited.
Other worthwhile criteria for "personhood" that have been mentioned in Deborah's posts:* emotional responses (which may be seen as a way of confirming the existence of perception and memory). Deborah singles out the response of "valuing the continuance of one's own existence" as a moral touchstone; without wishing to put words in her mouth, perhaps this is equivalent to "having the potential to feel happy".
* formation of relationships with other persons. (The recognition of the mother, as already mentioned, seems to start being established before birth.)
-
I just know someone is going to leap on this, so to clarify: it became apparent after its birth (hence I can properly use "baby" here) that its favourite song had been established by exposure before birth.
-
Linger I'm not gonna argue on the baby thing, but will point out different cultures tell age in different ways.
Those that developed counting without zero start at age one from birth, and others still don't care about the day.
If you're born in that year you are x years of age, new years day and you're another year older."Deborah suggests that "independent viability" makes a useful practical cutoff for moral purposes if we also lack indicators of "personhood"."
This is why I asked about euthanasia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4I think I am in four catagories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics -
I don't believe i have supported someone committing murder, as you said Grant
Killing is not necessarily murder.
If you reread, you'll find I never said i supported someone commiting murder, You should keep your reading glasses on at all times, and really make an effort to stop putting words in my mouth, when possible.
"**You** said you believe it is murder. " I see it as killing a fetus, a stage of personhood as you like to put it. Though i stressed I don't really like to put it in any such keyhole,
You believe my justification is not acceptable, but i feel I am justified in supporting someones' right do as they want with their body. Under better circumstances, that's where you step away from the computer, woken to the relativity of justification.
But then we are not living in a society that bases its legal system on what you think is OK.
Yeah well OK Grant. What is the law with regards to abortion?
your arguing about relative perceptions, it's a dead end street,<quote>A murderer clearly is not justified. A soldier clearly is.<quote>
in your mind
clearly
I disagree with this generalization on the grounds that i haven't heard the specifics. Is the killing by the soldier justified to this allies and enemies alike?
I think you need to use a dictionary before you use any more words.
dictionaries are maps Grant, to some people dictionaries are the gospel, to others, dictionaries are old dogs that refuse to keep up. To people that can read, dictionaries are very convenient things, and to people who can feel the language, dictionaries are well trained butlers.
You've tangled yourself up in words.
am i justified in saying that?
i feel i am
my justification is that you are a twit
murdering the language. -
Fair enough Shep, but I'd guess those other cultures would also use other labels than the English word "baby"!
Actually, after putting all of those criteria in one place and comparing them, I may have to modify my usage description slightly, namely: "baby" may be used even before birth, at a time when birth is a realistically possible event (so: normally, and hopefully, after the point of "independent viability"). Nevertheless, the more general point stands -- the term "baby" is licensed relative to the event of birth.
In her blog post, Deborah suggests euthanasia shouldn't be exactly parallel to abortion because, unlike an early-stage foetus, a comatose (etc) individual has previously established relationships to others, and has some continued status of "personhood" by virtue of that fact. I guess the practical effect of that is that, for euthanasia, we have to presume "personhood" until we have direct negative evidence (such as some medically-defined "brain-dead" state), whereas for early-stage abortion we would normally presume "non-personhood".
-
An involved and polite response, Linger. Thanks. I'm just going to assume it was aimed in my general direction :)
You cannot accept a label of baby based on general usage. I can understand that, but the idea that my usage of that term (correctly or incorrectly) has any impact on the facts is nonsense. I am grateful we can move on. Again, thank you.
I believe personhood is an abstract term. I.e. I do not hold any definitions or requirements other than the good judgement of those capable of expressing good judgement. You seem to have a more scientific scheme for determining who is and who is not a person. Allow me to use this difference between our approaches as the basis for exploring further. Feel free to point out if I have judged your position incorrectly :)
On your requirements for personhood:
(a) cell differentiation into many specialised types of tissue
Is it your opinion that personhood a gradual process? For example a baby at conception is not a person. After a time and cell divisions they are a little bit a person. After a few weeks they are half a person and then at some stage they are a full person? If this is how you see it then you might be interested to know that women would not be considered 100% human until they have become pregnant as it is the arrival of a new person that sets off a unique and the final event of cell differentiation in women.I know you do not believe that women who have never been pregnant are lesser persons, but if you are going to use cell differentiation as a determination for personhood then it is a perfectly rational conclusion to arrive at.
Are you willing to agree that cell differentiation is evidence that we have a person, but is not a determining factor?
I agree that appearance should not be used as a defining criterion. :)
You also seem to discount viability as a determining factor which I agree with as well. I see no difference between a baby being dependent on mother for nutrition, air and a comfortable environment inside the womb or outside. Neglect or abuse of a baby will result in his death regardless of location.
(b) a nervous system of some critical size (in terms of number of pathways), that allows it to (i) perceive its environment, and (ii) remember those perceptions.
I do not consider the ability to perceive or remember defining in terms of who is and is not a person. As I explained earlier I believe personhood can only be recognised by good judgement. I do agree that the ability to perceive and remember should give us ample evidence that we have a person.
I wonder if you might consider what a baby at conception must turn his energy to. At conception there is a single cell. This cell contains all the information required for that one cell to build a body for himself. I wonder if you would be willing to compare the wonders of a newborn's ability to perceive with a newlyconceiveds (to coin a term :) ability to build himself. I'm sure you will agree that the two capacities are at least equally magnificent. I would say the ability to build oneself is far more magnificent!
Of course this ignores your suggestion that memory or perception might define a person. In addition to the reservations you shared on the matter (that babies may be able to remember and perceive well before we are able to detect their ability) you might also consider a similar argument against it found in my response to your ideas on cell differentiation. I.e. is personhood a gradually acquired trait? Does the ability to perceive make one more of a person?
Again, I am sure you do not believe this, but it is a rational conclusion to make from what you suggest.
I agree with a lot of what you have said and feel that if the law were to reflect your ideas then abortion would well be defined as murder from a very early stage. Unfortunately this is not good enough for me. I believe that personhood is a trait conferred at conception and that termination of that living human is unjustified and murder. I believe I have presented a perfectly rational set of reasons why I believe as I do. I know many do not agree and I appreciate your attempts to discourse in a friendly manner.
Thanks.
-
I don't believe i have supported someone committing murder, as you said Grant
Well, like you say, "justification is relative". What you think has no bearing on what I think. Nor would what you think have any bearing on what the law says if you were to be charged for your crime.
If you reread, you'll find I never said i supported someone commiting murder, You should keep your reading glasses on at all times, and really make an effort to stop putting words in my mouth, when possible.
I agree, and I wear my glasses all day so I put no words in your mouth. It was me that said you supported a murder based on your own definitions and terminology. Perhaps if you do not wish people to accuse you of things you do not like then you should use words that do not contradict your standards. Or are you an idealist?
"You said you believe it is murder. " I see it as killing a fetus, a stage of personhood as you like to put it. Though i stressed I don't really like to put it in any such keyhole
But you did. The whole reason I said you supported a murder is because you said that the detection of a pregnancy is a determination for personhood.
You believe my justification is not acceptable, but i feel I am justified in supporting someones' right do as they want with their body. Under better circumstances, that's where you step away from the computer, woken to the relativity of justification.
I do not accept your justification for your actions just as every other person on Earth has standards by which they will not accept every action by other people. I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions. Let me clue you in - when your worldview can be dismantled in three words it is a good clue that perhaps you need to rethink what you believe...
Yeah well OK Grant. What is the law with regards to abortion? your arguing about relative perceptions, it's a dead end street
The law about abortion is bad. Almost everyone here agrees with that. What was your point again?
I disagree with this generalization on the grounds that i haven't heard the specifics. Is the killing by the soldier justified to this allies and enemies alike?
OF COURSE! If the situation is specified then judgement can be better rendered. If we find out that a murder accused acted to protect his family from an axe wielding maniac then we do not prosecute him as a murderer, we release him as a hero!
If we find a soldier is leaving camp at night to visit the local village and strangle people then we court martial and execute him and strip him of any awards he may have.
Your demand for specifics only makes more clear my point! We thrive on the ability to judge rightly! Justification is entirely not relative .. You only want it to be so because otherwise you would not have any (relative or not).
dictionaries are maps Grant, to some people dictionaries are the gospel, to others, dictionaries are old dogs that refuse to keep up. To people that can read, dictionaries are very convenient things, and to people who can feel the language, dictionaries are well trained butlers.
I think you believe that butler analogy too much. I think you've applied it to all the conversations you've had and given the lack of a solid rebuttal (hehehehe) have simply been encouraged to build a house without a foundation. Think about it, Mark! How much more satisfying if you actually had the ability to say I was wrong rather than only being able to whinge that I do not agree with you.
:)
-
I don't agree in principle with a criterion for personhood based on "good judgement", as I would like to be classed as a person regardless of who is observing or judging me. Hence my preference for an objective criterion.
I did not intend the "differentiation" criterion as any scaleable "amount of personhood", but as a precondition that is necessary (though not sufficient), because it produces (among other things) the neural network that is essential for the functions of perception and memory that serve as the main defining criterion. Any human "person" has to have undergone a certain critical amount of cell differentiation to produce this. (BTW your counterfactual seems a little skewed: surely by your argument, pregnant women would undergo more cell differentiation than other people, and thus would be measured as having more personhood than anyone else, rather than nonpregnant women being "inferior" as you suggested?)
is personhood a gradually acquired trait?
Actually, I rather think it is, apart from the "gradual" bit (I think of it more as an emergent phenomenon, which may not appear until certain abilities at a certain stage of development are combined in a certain way). As I said in my last post, perception and memory together are important because they allow learning -- which I would take as the process of developing personhood (including here Deborah's criteria of emotional responses and relationships). In taking "some capacity for perception and memory" as the minimum criterion, I am deliberately setting the bar for "personhood" rather low (there may be grounds for taking this level as showing "demonstrated potential to develop personhood" rather than "definite personhood").
Does the ability to perceive make one more of a person?
I wouldn't say that having more ability to perceive necessarily gives someone more personhood (possibly, they might be a more developed person, or a more valuable person... but those are different judgement scales!). As my answer above may suggest, it's what you do with your perceptions that counts.
-
It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is alive. It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is human.
This really feels like an argument about whether a tadpole is a frog, in 'modern day belief', whatever that means.
-
This really feels like an argument about whether a tadpole is a frog
My favourite aspect of this whole argument - and, in fact, these arguments in general - is the way the woman hosting the all-important foetus is apparently a total afterthought. I can imagine her, this Everywomb: 'Hi! I'm over here! A person, any way you slice it! Remember me? I'll just be sitting quietly in this corner. Cool. Let me know what you decide, 'kay?'
-
Exacatamundo, Danielle (as they say on the Continent).
-
*blush* um. yeh. that's what happens when we focus on the small things... For the record, in case it wasn't obvious already, I'm trying to avoid imposing boundaries on what should ultimately be her decision.
-
Danielle - still backing Deborah's stand on the 'justification' on infantacide?
-
My favourite aspect of this whole argument - and, in fact, these arguments in general - is the way the woman hosting the all-important foetus is apparently a total afterthought.
If the baby is a tadpole/frog, then I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're a fishbowl/pond/creek. Feel free to choose what suits ;)
-
Danielle - still backing Deborah's stand on the 'justification' on infanticide?
I'm not sure what your deal is with that. She isn't saying she's pro-infanticide, she's saying her ethical/philosophical stance on abortion could also be used to justify infanticide. There's a huge difference.
I'm all about the simplicity, anyway: I'm not intelligent enough to have philosophical positions like that. Although I am a woman, I am also a person; I have a body attached to my personhood; until Foetus O'Shea becomes a Tiny Homeslice that can hang out and watch TV with me, I would like to have total control over what happens to that body, just as non-pregnant people do. My choice. My 'philosophy' is based around prioritising the personhood of the woman, not debating the personhood or otherwise of the foetus. (For all I know the damn thing is playing parcheesi in there with my left kidney and has a TV show on the Living Channel called Grand Designs: Wombs. Not my philosophical issue, I'm afraid.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.